List Calendar Items

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it details error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), explains pagination behavior ('the response reports how many pages remain'), and notes the project_id default from procore_set_config. It also explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' reinforcing the readOnlyHint without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds use-case, defaults, return format, safety note, error handling, and API reference. Every sentence contributes unique useful information with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return type ('JSON array of calendar items'), pagination behavior, error semantics, required parameter, and even the exact Procore API endpoint. With the schema already covering all parameter descriptions, this description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for project_id (defaults to procore_set_config value) and for pagination (page/per_page behavior and remaining-pages reporting), which go beyond the schema. It does not, however, explain filter/view/sort parameters, so it doesn't earn a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Returns all Calendar Items for a given project,' a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies the intended use ('Use this to discover calendar items or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_calendar_item, show_calendar_item, and delete_calendar_item. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('to discover calendar items or to look up the id') and provides context about the project_id default. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should not be used or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.